But the best thing really is how removed from reality you discuss this, sitting in your comfortable chair and musing on end results that count beyond any "social contracts", as if game was just another word for the reality of being thrown lonely naked into the wide ocean full of sharks to prove survival of the fittest.

When you of all people get that boot rammed into your stomach the moment the referee looks away, I sure as heck would enjoy seeing you and have some chat on that issue. But no no, sitting there while sipping on your cup of coffee, looking with a slight shiver through that window at that wild outside, dreaming an alternative life full of adventure and danger where you could prove your worth as hero in the middle, you sure imagine how you would scoff that off and say as you have said here "What's so bastardly about that? who's to blame, the player or the creator of the game? That poor sob of a guy just plays what's there, who am I to tell him how to play the game? After they have fixed my broken ribs, I'll come visit him with some flowers and let him teach me a thing or two! Can't wait for the rematch! After I renewed my health insurance."

Good thing you don't have to play the games you theorize about! And good thing professionals get paid for that.

Nein, nein, nein! Do not be so little! When I say answer it, I mean respond to it, to Them.

RageAgainstVoid wrote:One player wants to play soccer, the other wants to kill him.

What I referred to from the finals some hours ago, in case you missed that. Asshole was allowed to play on. The game defined through that referee allowed for playing like that, ergo that shit must have been alright, right? and so it happened galore.

What a brutal foul that was, I haven't heard anyone say other than he should've gotten straight red for that.

For a moment, I thought a bad imitation of a Chuck Norris movie had broken out.

Same here, I was shocked. Some say shit's even more than red, it's criminal. It's curious really, why should something like that not be filed charges for, right? Should a game take place outside institutes of real law & order, only referees responsible dealing with that in their little wonder world, like if the playfield was its own state with diplomatic immunity to the players? That asshole had to go to jail right off the field for shit like that, you have to draw a line somewhere. To hell "only the end result counts, you are free to play as you want when you can get away with it, social decency doesn't matter" my ass. People need a fucking reality check. But the most disgusting is how after such regular crippling assaults the perpetrators not only act as if it was an accidental slip, they even complain aloud at length and portray themselves as victims, watching that makes you throw up.

Nein, nein, nein! Do not be so little! When I say answer it, I mean respond to it, to Them.

But the most ridiculous about this trend to gaming-darwinism is how it is in conflict with its own teaching in about everything of itself, that the competitive profession--the paragons of that movement--inspiring all those wanna-be selected-predators, is more an illusion of it than anything else, that no one else is as burdened with contracts and conventions as them, that no casual match has as many and complex an external rule overlay to a given game as when played organized, be it soccer, or be it starcraft. It takes you an hour to study tourney booklets on how you are supposed to play the game to which you thought to already know the rules, it takes a minute to agree on "no rush" or "no building cheese" as some preferred mode of play in some casual match. And here are they talking about narrow arbitrary setups of play, as if theirs wasn't the most narrow and as arbitrary as any other! Not to mention that when it comes down to it, glorifying end results is as arbitrary a guideline or measure as any other. A complete absurdity! Their "Don't hate the player, hate the game!" turns out to be as much "Don't hate my game, while I hate yours!" as for anyone else. And when they have fully indulged their fatalistic attitude to the point it's the end of everything, no players, no game, a species depriving itself of its own essentials to prosperity and even survival, what they liked most becoming obsolete, we can lay back and look at it, thinking "Well, no shit, it really is the end result that counts.".

Nein, nein, nein! Do not be so little! When I say answer it, I mean respond to it, to Them.

First off PtW deals (mostly) with competitive multi-player computer games. Stretching it to a new domain dilutes PtW and makes it more fuzzy. Real world and computer world are starkly divided by the games coding. This is the main problem with your football example, he obviously broke the explicit rules of the tournament which is in conflict with PtW, on the other hand, one can interpret this as an oversight in implicit rules which is PtW. Speaking of, while a (computer) game is created in a social context it doesn't require a social construct to exist, as it can be played without any players at all (replace players with bots for instance).

You get what you measure. If you want to watch sportsmanship in a game, measure it. Players (especially professional) aren't stupid, they'll optimize for what it takes to win.

Each player has its own vision of what designer meant that matches his best overall game-style. Each player, in a game will try to force other players into a game that suits him the most.

Playing to Win doesn't excuse the player; It just says that he can do whatever he wants. Its still up to the player to judge if acting like a douche is most beneficial for him. Most top players are also great sportsman because playing like a douche carries many risks and some aren't willing to take those risks (in case of a foul/fake - you bring air of negativity which in turn is more stressful, judges are less likely to believe you and probably will favor your opponent in a dispute and the very act also carries a risk of getting suspended).

-Y- wrote:First off PtW deals (mostly) with competitive multi-player computer games. Stretching it to a new domain dilutes PtW and makes it more fuzzy.

It was you who stretched PtW to not only justify but even cheer on fouling in soccer. It is also you who stretches PtW already by having it justify rule abuse in any game at all; if anything, PtW's freedom of play is meant to be within a certain space of sanctioned play, to make effective use of it, that is first of all the very spirit of competitive tournament play. Anything else is scientific talk in game theory meant for better understanding of certain aspects of the world, but with limits to how we want to play our games--a confusion all too often with some tourney players when they pick up some tidbits, twisting it in their attempts to explain themselves. That you even brought up PtW at all in a discussion about cheese and fouls which are acts outside the game, is meaningless. Yes, cheese is outside the game as much as fouls, because as much as fouls can often not be prevented, only punished hindsight according to a consensus of what is acceptable play, cheese can often not be prevented as well until a next patch of the game--only refrained from or punished by the community to have any chance of worthwhile matches at all meanwhile. That's the point of it, to make the best out of what's there explicitly, that's the interim patched-up game for the players and spectators, until things get improved implicitly in a real patch. All competitive tourneys have various rule overlays for exactly this reason. However what you did here was arguing the exact contrary, you contradicted the very foundation you fielded: You used PtW to justify degeneration of play merely because it's implicitly possible to do, whereas this on its own has never been justification enough in competitive play anywhere, be it for computer games or real world athletics.

-Y- wrote:Real world and computer world are starkly divided by the games coding. This is the main problem with your football example,

The stark devision is actually most perfectly useful to this discussion, because it glaringly shows the very core of the problem: the problem is when the computer world does not make use of the abundant possibilities and superiorities it has above real world athletics such as soccer, not making use of advantages inherent to the medium because of misconstrued ideas on freedom and tolerance.

-Y- wrote:he obviously broke the explicit rules of the tournament which is in conflict with PtW

It was you who repeatedly justified the breaking of rules with PtW, just as so many people use Sirlin's writing not only to justify their play in the game as is, but even to fend off any changes to the game in order to keep that play. Your own statements are in conflict with each other, because you have yet to make up your mind on what it means and in what space it makes sense to apply.

-Y- wrote:, on the other hand, one can interpret this as an oversight in implicit rules which is PtW.

It's not about oversights in implicit rules, it's making the best out of explicit rules, this is what it always has been about, because every game ever created has "oversights" in implicit rules, there's always something that is not or cannot be accounted for inside and outside. And there is a real world embedding the game box, you can "win" a chess match by threatening the opponent with physical harm should he make a good move, nothing in the implicit rules can prevent this or even mentions this as wrong; social context, common sense, explicit rules do, they have always covered up for that and whatever else, they complete the game so that a meaningful play can take place, they are intrinsic as well as direly needed, circumvention of which defeats the game, not the opponents. This is nothing different from frowning upon and explicitly outlawing building cheese until a later patch, not despite but because the game currently cannot handle this implicitly. This goes hand in hand, these provisions are meant to complement for mutual benefit, it has always been this way, not against each other as you describe it. The practical question for fans of a game is not "how can we fuck this game all over for a win until the game gets changed or no one plays anymore", it is "how can we play this game such that playing and winning still make sense until it's changed?"

-Y- wrote:Speaking of, while a (computer) game is created in a social context it doesn't require a social construct to exist, as it can be played without any players at all (replace players with bots for instance).

It always is and it always requires, because you yourself on your own are already a social construct to begin with. The players create the game by negotiation and agreement, and they carry responsibility to all those involved. If only one player is involved, then that's that, he still faces himself, and this makes single-player a mere difference in scale, not an exception to the principle.

-Y- wrote:You get what you measure. If you want to watch sportsmanship in a game, measure it. Players (especially professional) aren't stupid, they'll optimize for what it takes to win.

The hell, this is what we are talking about the whole time, and this is what you argued against the whole time and still do in other passages now, on basis of PtW!

-Y- wrote:Each player has its own vision of what designer meant that matches his best overall game-style. Each player, in a game will try to force other players into a game that suits him the most.

There is a sanctioned consensus of what the game is, and that consensus forces the player the moment he agrees to the game, or should force if that wasn't eroded on false grounds.

-Y- wrote:Playing to Win doesn't excuse the player; It just says that he can do whatever he wants.

What the fuck is that kind of reasoning? Pan-galactic logic from the 7th dimension?

-Y- wrote:Its still up to the player to judge if acting like a douche is most beneficial for him.

What's much more important is that it's up to a better judge, be it the referee or the game designer, or be it peers and audience, basically to everyone else but him.

-Y- wrote:Most top players are also great sportsman because playing like a douche carries many risks and some aren't willing to take those risks (in case of a foul/fake - you bring air of negativity which in turn is more stressful, judges are less likely to believe you and probably will favor your opponent in a dispute and the very act also carries a risk of getting suspended).

Great fucking sportsmanship, give me a break. The very word sportmanship means to value your opponents and the spirit of the game more than victory. And cheese and fouls by definition always promise much more reward than risk, they are a no brainer to such a bastard, not an intricate consideration to play, the moment there are lapses in enforcement, which is why they are so common then.

Nein, nein, nein! Do not be so little! When I say answer it, I mean respond to it, to Them.

Bwahahahahaha, I just realized you pretty much come down as if it's goddamn quantum theory: When an enforcer does not watch you, then are you fouling or not, or in between? You're not Schrödinger's cat, fuck you. Just remember, god's always watching your little punk ass, he knows all your sins!

Nein, nein, nein! Do not be so little! When I say answer it, I mean respond to it, to Them.

I never justified, I explained. And second are you in all seriousness comparing a foul to a cheese? Are you saying a move that can affect your performance not just in this but potentially in all other matches for a long time, be compared to an exploit in a game whose effect wears off after the game is over?

As for the Pan-galactic logic 7, think about it all PtW says play however you choose/want. If you choose to play a certain way that is your choice; PtW didn't make that choice for you. Didn't God made a similar deal with man?

You used PtW to justify degeneration of play merely because it's implicitly possible to do, whereas this on its own has never been justification enough in competitive play anywhere, be it for computer games or real world athletics.

This statement would be true if ToB was played for a long period of time without any counter strategy being developed or leading to a degenerative play in the long run (long run taking months at the very least). To my knowledge I never used cheese in ToB as a specific example as I'm unaware of the gameplay (I may have used cheese as a general term).

I interpret PtW that way for the same reason I use pessimistic locking - "Better safe than sorry". If you make a game so assholes can't spoil it much, then regulars will enjoy it as well.

A question for you:In the middle ages a King defeated his enemy. In such cases most Kings executed their enemies without a flinch but this King decided to give the defeated a chance to join him as an ally (King didn't demand anything in return). Was this act an act of good will? Of sportsmanship?

Last edited by -Y- on Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You did. You even encouraged it. Literary. You are just hiding behind word and phrase games as you see fit.

-Y- wrote:And second are you in all seriousness comparing a foul to a cheese? Are you saying a move that can affect your performance not just in this but potentially in all other matches for a long time, be compared to an exploit in a game whose effect wears off after the game is over?

The effect on other's performance beyond that match is not part of the definition of foul; severity further qualifies but not quantifies it. A foul is breaking the rules, be they implicit or explicit, simple as that.

-Y- wrote:As for the Pan-galactic logic 7, think about it all PtW says play however you choose/want. If you choose to play a certain way that is your choice; PtW didn't make that choice for you. Didn't God made a similar deal with man?

Foul is not part of the choices to the game, foul does not exist as available option to the game, it is not part of a player's freedom in that game, just as force choking you is not part of my freedom in this universe: it's just that with games the rules and laws can be more easily broken than with the ones of the universe, and while we have to necessarily face people when breaking a game, we don't have to necessarily face anyone by meddling with the universe.

Telling someone he can do whatever he wants is justifying his action with freedom, otherwise this action would not be justified by not having been granted this freedom, either by not being able to do this, or by being told to not do this.

And god did not make a deal with man, because god is no person and god doesn't care; your fellow players are and they do, and you make a deal with them when agreeing to the game.

-Y- wrote:This statement would be true if ToB was played for a long period of time without any counter strategy being developed or leading to a degenerative play in the long run (long run taking months at the very least). To my knowledge I never used cheese in ToB as a specific example as I'm unaware of the gameplay (I may have used cheese as a general term).

Guess what we have been talking about here the whole time? You entered discussion and immediately threw in things like "I disagree,.." and "No,.." and applied PtW as you saw fit without ever understanding what we were talking about, you just keep talking for the sake of it, you never seriously bothered experiencing it, heck I wouldn't be surprised if you still haven't played a single match yet even while discussing this, yet here are you still talking on and on about playing to win, completely tangling yourself up in your ridiculous theorems, be it related to cheese in ToB or fouls in soccer, as well as you are not qualified at all to argue about parallels.

-Y- wrote:I interpret PtW that way for the same reason I use pessimistic locking - "Better safe than sorry". If you make a game so assholes can't spoil it much, then regulars will enjoy it as well.

No, no that is definitely not what you were talking about, that was what we were talking about, we were talking about changing the implicit game and denouncing cheese explicitly meanwhile. Your talk amounts to "Better freedom than safety" to justify (oh right! you just explained!...) cheese and fouls just because it's possible to do, even if that means no one plays it anymore, basically saying "that's that then" when we were talking about actively preventing exactly this abandonment. You even disagreed on the very notion of denouncing "players" and "play"-styles with asshole and bastardly, based on all that.

Your "that's what the game is, live with it as the designer designs it or not" has never been the reality in the history of any game ever; it's our "we can also take an active role by sanctioning play, thereby changing the game on our own to our needs and tastes as we go", this is even what always has happened in any game ever. Haven't I already told you to get a reality check?

-Y- wrote:A question for you:In the middle ages a King defeated his enemy. In such cases most Kings executed their enemies without a flinch but this King decided to give the defeated a chance to join him as an ally (King didn't demand anything in return). Was this act an act of good will? Of sportsmanship?

What has this anything to do with our discussion? And you were blaming me for stretching it with soccer? You are not even talking the same discussion, never were.

Nein, nein, nein! Do not be so little! When I say answer it, I mean respond to it, to Them.

I know the pieces fit, 'cause I watched them tumble down.No fault, none to blame; it doesn't mean I don't desireTo point the finger, blame the other, watch the temple topple overTo bring the pieces back together, rediscover communication.

I know the pieces fit, 'cause I watched them tumble down.No fault, none to blame; it doesn't mean I don't desireTo point the finger, blame the other, watch the temple topple overTo bring the pieces back together, rediscover communication.

Denied. You're done here. Take the pity rests of this matter to another place on the web if you care. Notice something? I gave you a taste of your own medicine: Play to Win, PtW, hurrhum, that's deep, worth a fucking acronym, thanks for the tip genius, have a nice day.

I don't care at all for your "Zen-like" patience, all you do is trying to outlast others, you are hiding behind friendly etiquette as means to an end, or is that rather means to no end? And to end this I am mean. Drown in your wishy-washy, shall fools have sympathy with you.

Nein, nein, nein! Do not be so little! When I say answer it, I mean respond to it, to Them.

RageAgainstVoid wrote:Denied. You're done here. Take the pity rests of this matter to another place on the web if you care. Notice something? I gave you a taste of your own medicine

A true taste of my own medicine would be to make me troll you, so you have a reason to ban me. Then again, I probably shouldn't give you more ideas. And for the record it wasn't facade, though I'm not fond of you.

@Dominant-Male: As for the tower thing, by making towers have a focus fire, you reward heroes for keeping creeps alive and prevent back-dooring. Heroes attacking in solo/duo/trio would take a lot of damage by themselves but not much damage while attacking in a large group. It could have some unforeseen side-effects like making creep managment too important.

I think some sort of Draft Picking system would be great (keep players in selection screen until everyone picks and let players take turns to pick), or maybe change duplicate mode so it allows duplicate heroes on opposing teams only, so it can't turn into 6 Bloodmages cheesing expos. Because the number of heroes is so limited, people usually rush to grab the heroes they want, and IMO that results in a lot of games that are skewed from the start because of the hero lineup. You can't even wait to see what your teammates pick and fill in the holes, because if you wait you risk ending up with no choices to make.

The problem with cheese is that at current it is so hard to counter. The Protoss shield on buildings is a good idea and would help a lot in reducing the effectiveness of cheese.

Another idea is to give town halls the ability to teleport a hero to another town hall. Work out a balance between channeling time and cool down time.

It could work by loading hero's into the town hall and then it can teleport everyone in it to another town hall, give it something like a 3 second channeling time and 5 min cool down.

Now lets say you took the other teams bottom expo and were sieging top. If they try and cheese bot you can run back from the expo you were sieging to the town hall, TP bot, repel the cheese then TP back to the top lane and finish the push.

Essentially it means if you are going to try cheese a expo it has to work or else the other team gets a major advantage. This would help restore the risk/reward factor.

Now the other problem is late game when one side has lost its expos and it takes forever to finish the mid. This opens up the game to cheese as your base is easy to defend so if you want to win you can cheese expos and bring the game to a stalemate. Periodically increasing the pushing powers of creeps would speed up the end game and help finish the game once the expos are done which would stop hero's from cheesing as they are needed to defend.

Whatabout just adding some siege units to all creep waves, and rebalancing tower strength and siege damage so that pushing with actual siege stuff is simply way more efficient than cheesing with few heroes?